Activists decry exclusion of undocumented workers from H.202

An undocumented Mexican migrant worker named Javier wouldn’t give his full name or say what county he lives in for fear of deportation. In spite of his apprehensions, however, he stood in front of the Statehouse on Sunday and told a crowd of May Day activists that the health care reform bill they had worked hard to support included a provision that discriminates against undocumented workers. Javier’s remarks were translated by an interpreter.

“This amendment appears to be a discriminatory act to exclude us from the health care proposal,” Javier told the crowd.

Javier, who has farmer’s lung, said he would not be able to receive medical attention if H.202 passes because he would not be able to afford to pay for his care out of pocket. Doctors have suggested that he undergo testing because they suspect he has fibrosis. Javier said the expense makes further diagnosis impossible.

The Vermont Farmworker Solidarity Project and the Vermont Workers Center has organized a lobby day today to pressure lawmakers to reverse the amendment, which they say runs counter to the fundamental principles of health care for all. They are also holding a press conference on the Statehouse steps to make their case to reporters at noon on Monday.

About 1,500 to 2,000 undocumented dairy workers from Mexico are employed by Vermont farmers and they are credited with helping to keep the dairy industry solvent at a time when few Vermonters are willing to work on farms.

Universal health care means universal, David Karindler, an organizer with the center, said.

“This is the first time such hateful language has been put in legislation,” Karindler said. “We’re all about inclusion in this state. This is the first time exclusion has become part of a bill. This is about undocumented people flocking to the state. Why would they flock to a place with no housing and no jobs?”

The Senate amendment to H.202, the universal health care bill, limits access to the state’s insurance exchange, which goes into effect in 2013, and Green Mountain Care, the single-payer system which could be implemented as early as 2014, to Vermont residents. Under the provision, individuals in the exchange are “reasonably expected to be during the time of enrollment, a citizen or national of the United States or a lawfully present immigrant in the United States as defined by federal law.”

The amendment is based on federal requirements under the Affordable Care Act, which restricts access to the state’s health care exchanges to legal residents of the United States. The Brock-Sears amendment would make it illegal for the state to provide federal funding for care through the exchanges. As it stands now, Medicaid money cannot be used to provide health care for undocumented residents. Legislative lawyers are re-evaluating the legal repercussions of the language in the amendment, according to Senate President Pro Tem John Campbell, D-Windsor.

“I doubt people are going to be moving up here,” Campbell said. Vermont already has more generous Medicaid benefits than those offered by other states and that fact hasn’t led to an influx of people to moving here, he said.

Senate Democrats voted overwhelmingly for the amendment in a 22-8 vote after Sen. Claire Ayer announced that the Senate Health and Welfare Committee had reviewed the amendment and took no position on it. Ayer later voted for the amendment, along with Sen. Tim Ashe, P/D-Burlington, and because they were called on first to vote (the roll call is given in alphabetical order), one observer speculated that this signaled a green light to other Democrats in the chamber. Campbell also voted yes.

James Haslam posted a statement about the vote on the left-leaning blog Green Mountain Daily last week that sparked a fierce debate in which the word “racist” emerged.

Campbell said there was some confusion in the Senate about the amendment. For that reason, he asked Shumlin administration lawyers to review the language and they gave senators the go-ahead.

“It came down a lot of things happening last week,” Campbell said. “This was not something on anyone’s radar until we saw the amendment with the assurance of certain individuals. You put faith and trust in that. If it’s determined to be a mistake, then as far as I’m concerned I’ll take the heat on that go ahead and change it. I don’t think Dick Sears or Randy Brock are racists or trying to be Arizona-like in their development of the law.”

Campbell described the provision as belt-and-suspenders legislation – essentially a restatement of the federal law.

Activists question why the amendment is necessary if it’s part of the federal law.

Karindler said Sen. Randy Brock, R-Grand Isle-Franklin, went out of his way to redefine what a resident was.

Peg Franzen, president of the Vermont Workers Center, said she thought the Senate debate on the amendment got confusing.

“We’re hoping people understand what it actually means,” Franzen said. “It actually refers to Green Mountain Care, which would not be set up until 2014 or 2017.”

Freshman Sen. Philip Baruth, D-Chittenden, who voted against the amendment, said it’s unfortunate that the attention is focused on the amendment when Senate Democrats evinced, “hard core serious unity” around support for H.202.

“I’m discouraged that this one stray amendment is now the story as though it’s indicating fractures in Democratic lines,” Baruth said. “It’s a shame. Instead of a victory lap we’re now in a simulated crisis. I don’t think it’s a crisis. It’s a bump and we will fix it. I hope people who voted for this will get a chance to vote for (the amendment) without it. There are people who did yeoman’s work on this bill who are being unfairly demonized in some quarters. It’s a shame all around that a victory lap morphed into something far less positive.”

Rep. Mark Larson, D-Burlington, and chair of the House Health Care Committee, said lawmakers will likely re-examine the amendment as part of a larger review of the legislation during the conference committees, which take place on Monday starting at 10 a.m., 1 p.m. and 4 p.m.

Larson is also dismayed by the turn of events.

“My focus is on trying to create a health care system that works for our state and I don’t want to get into a focus on whether my senate colleagues are racist or not,” Larson said. “I appreciate why people are upset about the amendment and the significance the issue has in terms of whether all people will be covered by Green Mountain Care. I also understand that national immigration policy isn’t very helpful at this point.”

In the past, Vermont used state dollars to cover health care costs for undocumented farm workers, according to Larson. Under federal rules, Medicaid money can’t be used. That policy would carry through under Green Mountain Care, Larson said, because part of the funding for the single-payer system would come from Medicaid. The state would have to come up with an alternative funding source. Currently, farmers, federal health centers and volunteer groups help workers with care, though in some cases health care providers end up shifting the cost to other patients.

Editor’s note: Add-ins were posted to this story at 6:36 a.m. The headline was also altered.

The purpose of this policy is to encourage a civil discourse among readers who are willing to stand behind their identities and their comments. VTDigger has created a safe zone for readers who wish to engage in a thoughtful discussion on a range of subjects. We hope you join the conversation.

Privacy policy

VTDigger.org does not share specific information about our readers with other entities. Email addresses we collect through our subscription list and comment submissions are kept private.

We use Google analytics to generate aggregated data regarding the size and geographic distribution of our readership. This information helps us gauge how many readers come to the website and what towns they live in. It does not include addresses or other identifying characteristics about our readers.

1000

Comment Policy

VTDigger.org requires that all commenters identify themselves by their authentic first and last names. Initials, pseudonyms or screen names are not permissible.

No personal harassment, abuse, or hate speech is permitted. Be succinct and to the point. If your comment is over 500 words, consider sending a commentary instead.

The purpose of this policy is to encourage a civil discourse among readers who are willing to stand behind their identities and their comments. VTDigger has created a safe zone for readers who wish to engage in a thoughtful discussion on a range of subjects. We hope you join the conversation.

Privacy policy

VTDigger.org does not share specific information about our readers with other entities. Email addresses we collect through our subscription list and comment submissions are kept private.

We use Google analytics to generate aggregated data regarding the size and geographic distribution of our readership. This information helps us gauge how many readers come to the website and what towns they live in. It does not include addresses or other identifying characteristics about our readers.

Sort by: newest | oldest | most voted

Ann Raynolds

5 years 7 months ago

I was at the rally yesterday with the VT for Single Payer network and we were explaining to anyone who would listen what both the Brock and Galbraith amendments were about. I was actuallly surprised how many people argued with me that “illegals” SHOULDN’T have access to OUR health care. The only arguments we mustered which seemed to grab people were: 1. Do you not want our dairy farmers in businees producing milk? Cause they couldn’t manage without workers and they couldn’t find Vermonters to do the job at the pay they were offereing. And if that didn’t work: 2.… Read more »

‘Do you want people producing our milk who may be coughing TB or other untreated diseases into our mil? And that usually made them pause.’

Extremely well put … and needs to be repeated over and over and over – ’cause diseases don’t care about legal status.

0

|

0

ReplyHide Replies ∧

Pam Ladds

5 years 7 months ago

The panic and drama around the “deserving” poor versus “those” people is rampant. Immigrant phobia is driving many of the poor decisions currently being made and implemented by many States, while the underlying issues of economics, injustice, poverty and joblessness get buried in racism. Excluding undocumented workers is an irrational decision and a very bad one in terms of public health. A healthy population benefits all of us. Joblessness and other real social and economic issues need to be debated and reasonable solutions found. However,lumping access to health care in with the rest of the “soup” defies common sense. The… Read more »

0

|

0

ReplyHide Replies ∧

Christian Noll

5 years 7 months ago

Well said Pam. We Americans have this thing for “Scare politics” and you can find it in other countries actually. France has a strong “Front Nationale” where Jean Marie LaPenne’s daughter has taken over her fathers’ right wing position as leader of the party. Immigrants soaking up their healthcare is one of the issues they use to scare people.

Scare tactics remind me of Salem Witchcraft.

0

|

0

ReplyHide Replies ∧

Dave Bellini

5 years 7 months ago

When general contractors hire illegal aliens they are portrayed as evil and as exploiting a population that they know won’t complain about wages or working conditions.

If a farmer does the same thing this is somehow rationalized as being for a greater good.

0

|

0

ReplyHide Replies ∧

walter moses

5 years 7 months ago

people who employ illegal aliens should be put in jail and the illegal aliens deported. i hope dick sears hangs in there against all the “‘activists” that seem to enjoy cheap food prices at the expense of the underpaid and exploited illegal alien farm worker. dairy farming in vermont is on it’s way out and it is only a matter of time before the big corporate farms of the west ship all the milk in this country. in the meantime, let’s keep insurance for the people who pay for it through their taxes and residency. almost all the exploited farm… Read more »

If we put the migrant workers in jail, then we have provide them with medical care. And putting them in jail does nothing to lessen the public health hazard a seriously ill farm worker (legal status notwithstanding) can present.

Wouldn’t it make more sense to include everyone in the health care bill and deal the immigration/economic issue separately? Be a lot less expensive then locking folks up as a starting point.

0

|

0

ReplyHide Replies ∧

Christian Noll

5 years 7 months ago

Yes Rama, it most certainly would be more “Expensive than locking folks up as a starting point.” You’re correct in that while incarcerated the state would pay much more. It’s getting close to $80,000 a year to incarcerate someone in Vermont.

“Jail” should be a very last resort for so many who are sent there. Its amazing how some of us still have this pre 1950’s hickabilly attitude about “locking people up.” The cost and consequenses are more than the average citizen is willing to comprehend.

0

|

0

ReplyHide Replies ∧

Jim Lynch

5 years 7 months ago

If we are a Nation of Laws as Senator Leahy put it, how can we look the other way when it comes to illegal immigrants? This is not a racist question but a legal question. If the residents of the State of Vermont want to include everyone in this plan then that’s fine with me. But it should be put to them in a referendum vote that states the Federal law. We still will be in violation of Federal law if we used Federal money for this expense. The second problem I have with this is the farming question. What… Read more »

0

|

0

ReplyHide Replies ∧

Why I Support VTDigger

"The decline of daily newspapers has diminished investment in the critical role of investigative journalism. VTDigger has reestablished a commitment to a service vital to an informed and democratic society."